(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.12.07 2018노2948 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.12.07 2018노2948

업무상횡령등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts of the crime of this case was erroneous, although the victim was aware of the loan of this case and the situation that the refund claim of the lease deposit of this case was provided as security prior to the loan was also known.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. On September 30, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would immediately transfer the leased deposit after the lease contract (hereinafter “the instant lease deposit return claim”) to the victim B and guarantee the recovery of the investment, and that he would pay 50% of the profits.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to transfer the above leased deposit to the victim because he had been willing to borrow money from the liquor business as security for the above leased deposit repayment claim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received from the injured party the amount of KRW 40 million from the 8th floor of the Seoul F building in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, KRW 20 million on September 30, 2016, KRW 30 million on October 6 of the same year, KRW 10 million on November 1 of the same year, and transferred KRW 40 million to the H bank account in the name of H bank in the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2) On the judgment of the court below, the court below held that ① there is no interest in providing the victim with the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case as security for the Defendant’s obligation to lend the loans to the alcoholic beverage business entity, which is the Defendant’s personal debt under the terms of the agreement between the Defendant and the victim, and ② the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.08.16 2017고단8537

-서울북부지방법원 2021.01.19 2020나30512

-서울서부지방법원 2018.11.13 2018고정778

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.17 2015고단4811